Procedures Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Tuesday 12 February 2002 (Morning) Session 1 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2002. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 12 February 2002 Col. CONSULTATIVE STEERING GROUP PRINCIPLES (INQUIRY) .......................................................................... 1315 PUBLIC BILLS (GUIDANCE).................................................................................................................... 1355 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE rd 3 Meeting 2002, Session 1 CONVENER *Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con) DEPU TY CONVENER *Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastw ood) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) *Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD) *Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) *Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) *Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO ATTENDED : Professor David McCrone (Adviser) Andrew Mylne (Scottish Parliament Directorate of Clerking and Reporting) WITNESSES Bill Anderson (Forum of Private Business in Scotland) Patric k Brow ne (Scottish Retail Consortium) Iain Carmichael (Scottish Enterprise) Roland Diggens (Scottish Council for Development and Industry) Brian Jamieson (Scottish Enterprise) Bob Leitch (Scottish Chambers of Commerce) Alan Wilson (Scottish Counc il for Development and Industry) CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE John Patterson SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Mark Mac Pherson LOC ATION Chamber 1315 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1316 Scottish Parliament open, transparent and accessible manner in which the Parliament operates. It is particularly appreciated that that manner compares favourably Procedures Committee with the more formal and less open consultative processes that are often used at Westminster. Tuesday 12 February 2002 Our members believe that Scottish parliamentarians are more open to the arguments (Morning) that are presented by the business community. It is recognised that the Parliament‟s procedures [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:31] give industry bodies such as ours more of an opportunity to present the concerns of the industry with a view to their being addressed. Clearly, in Consultative Steering Group many respects the Scottish Parliament is still a Principles (Inquiry) work in progress. Over time its processes and procedures will develop, as they have done during the past two and a half years. The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh): Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the third meeting We feel that the Parliament could try to improve this year of the Procedures Committee. This is our a number of operational areas, to give civic umpteenth meeting on the consultative steering Scotland—the business community in particular— group principles inquiry, which is rapidly becoming more of an opportunity to embrace the Parliament the parliamentary equivalent of “The Mousetrap”. in its operation. We have a concern about some of This morning we have trapped representatives of the time scales that committees apply when they Scotland‟s business and commercial sector. I look seek evidence from groups that are affected by forward to hearing what everybody has to say. We committee inquiries or proposed legislation. Too have received submissions from some witnesses; often, time scales are so tight that they restrict the others will give us a verbal presentation. We will ability of trade bodies to consult fully with their rattle through all the contributions before holding a members in reaching an opinion. general discussion. Judging from the written The Enterprise and Lifelong Learning submissions, many of the issues are points in Committee‟s inquiry into the Tobacco Advertising common. and Promotion (Scotland) Bill offered the most We will start with the initial comments of Pat recent example of that. The SRC was given a few Browne, who is from the Scottish Retail weeks over the festive period—the busiest time for Consortium. retailers—to supply a response on the impact that the bill would have on the retail sector. We Patrick Browne (Scottish Retail Consortium): supplied a response and will give evidence on the I thank the committee for giving the Scottish Retail bill to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Consortium the opportunity to give evidence as Committee tomorrow morning. It would have been part of the inquiry into the CSG principles. The better if we had had longer to consult with our Scottish Retail Consortium was launched in April members on how the bill would affect them, so 1999 specifically in response to the creation of the that our response reflected fully their concerns. Scottish Parliament. Prior to the consortium‟s launch, our parent association—the British Retail Prior to the creation of the Parliament, one of the Consortium—had continuing contact with the operational developments that was most warmly Scottish Office on issues that affected the retail welcomed was the fact that parliamentary sector in Scotland. committees would have powers to scrutinise legislation and investigate issues, as well as to It was felt that the establishment of the legislate where that was felt necessary. It is Parliament presented an ideal opportunity to evident, and generally accepted, that those wide- develop a new trade association alongside the ranging powers have not been used as effectively new Parliament and its politicians and to give a as they could have been. specific voice to the concerns of Scottish-based retailers. The Scottish Retail Consortium was one We suggest that part of the reason for that is the of the first trade bodies to be established in heavy legislative agenda of the Parliament, which Edinburgh in response to devolution. drives much of the work of committees. Another reason is the heavy turnover in the membership of I do not propose to restate the contents of our parliamentary committees, which has given detailed response to the consultation. Instead, I parliamentarians less time to build an in-depth will focus on a few key issues that we raised in our knowledge of specific subject areas. As a result, written evidence. Since the establishment of the opportunities for legislative reform do not present Scottish Parliament, it is clear from speaking to themselves as readily as they could do. colleagues and retailers that they welcome the 1317 12 FEBRUARY 2002 1318 The SRC believes that there is scope for that you will forgive us if we have invited too many examining whether it is possible to make the business groups this morning. I am sure that they membership of committees more stable and to will all get their say. give committees more time to discuss a wider Brian Jamieson, the company secretary of range of issues, when considering their own Scottish Enterprise, is next. legislation. The SRC also feels that there needs to be greater co-ordination between committees in Brian Jamieson (Scottish Enterprise): Iain relation to the organisations from which they take Carmichael, senior director of finance of Scottish evidence. Although that was a significant issue at Enterprise, is with me. the beginning of the Parliament‟s operation, the Scottish Enterprise is a non-departmental public fact that the Parliament‟s pre-legislative scrutiny body, which is sponsored by the Scottish powers are working in a more effective way means that perhaps it has become less of an issue. Executive‟s department of enterprise and lifelong learning. We are grateful to the committee for the Groups and organisations from other sectors opportunity to give evidence. I will not repeat the have mentioned that the usual suspects are written submission, which members have a copy invited regularly to the Parliament to give of, but will highlight a few general points from our evidence—apparently on issue after issue. That experience of working with the Parliament during has also been a concern among bodies that the past two and a half years. represent the business community. The Unlike the other organisations that are establishment of the Parliament represents a clear represented at this meeting, Scottish Enterprise is opportunity to reach out to the dozens of smaller trade bodies that are representing Scottish a public body, so our comments are made from that perspective. We have focused on two businesses for the first time and to let them have aspects: accountability and, to some extent, their say. That opportunity has not yet been grasped effectively. accessibility, which we have direct experience of. Both those principles are well evidenced by the Input from a wider range of business groups holding of today‟s session. It is difficult to imagine needs to be balanced by all business an equivalent process at Westminster. As a public organisations being a bit more honest about how body, in a number of ways we are held to account they work with the Scottish Parliament. more regularly by the Scottish Parliament than we Specifically, they need to recognise that they do were when we were subject to Westminster not always